tv This Week With George Stephanopoulos ABC February 17, 2013 9:39am-10:00am EST
>> i would also say that as far as immigration goes, i think health care education, other issues for the latino community are very important just like all americans but they do use i think that immigration issue to sort out who the good guys and bad guys are in politics. so it's not just tone but it's also the policies that were passed in arizona, in alabama, in georgia, and those aren't going away for awhile. >> i think there's a very important part of this, the obama administration probably can't bring itself to deal with. an obama immigration plan is not going to pass the house. >> he needs a rubio/obama plan. >> i'm just saying just from a bush social security plan after '04 was dped because it was the bush social security plan so if you want legislation. >> will a rubio immigration plan pass the house. >> no, but i think a rubio -- the house republicans and house democrats have been meeting on immigration. i mean i think there will be a house immigration bill that has a very substantial support that
boehner and can'ter and others will be supporting and i think that negotiated with a senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the prosecutor he's desk. but an obama plan led and driven by obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility i think is very hard to imagine that bill -- that his bill will pass the house. >> newt brings up the really interesting leadership conundrum of obama. you have them demanding that the president lead and demanding the president plan and then you have the reality on the ground that when the president does lead, the answer is, no way. >> it becomes radioactive. >> so -- go ahead. >> that's a test of the president. is it about politics or passing a bill because you have in senator rubio someone who really is doing something here extraordinary, trying to to and he could be a partner in this process to help get it through. >> but one thing, stu -- >> and they're going to use that
person and try to help and work with him and lower the temperature to all of this and not be leaking plans and not be calling bluffs and try to get something done. if you get -- this is a moment. >> well, we don't know who leaked and the question -- i'm a big believer in working together and i'm a big believer in reaching out. i also think newt is exactly right if you reach out too publicly, if you embrace too much you're going to doom your plan and so it's very complicated and especially because of the cross pressures on rubio and the republican party that george mentioned. >> if the president wants any substantial legislative achievement in the next four years and every hour that passes his power begins to leach away it's got to be this. the pell po neeson wars. no he isn't going to redesign high schools and he said he'll have manufacturing hubs and scores of solyndras along the way and more crone think
capitalism and double down on head start. 47 years of experience with head start and know all the good has dissipated by the third grade. none of that is going to happen. this could happen. >> so, this is -- the stake are extremely high for the republicans, not just the president in terms of a legislative achievement. we have as much talked about republican reboot. "the new york times" magazine has a cover story today on the republicans and their problem with technology and stuart, this quote caught my eye "romney's senior strategist stuart stevens, may well be remembered by historians as the last guy to run a presidential campaign who never tweeted." >> really made -- if i had tweeted in this campaign this whole discussion we've been having about the second amendment would be replaced about the first amendment and whether it should apply to tweeting. listen i don't think that it would be a great mistake if we felt that technology in itself is going to save the republican party. technology is something to a
large degree you can go out and purchase and if we think there's an off the shelf solution that you can with the republican party it's wrong. you know, we've had a lot of chance since the campaign to spend time with the obama folks and sometimes they had better technology. some cases we have better technologiment we don't have 140 character problem in the republican party. we have a larger problem that we have to look at and be patient about it. and trying to think that there's one solution like this, i just don't think -- >> are we ever going to get you on twitter, though? >> we can discuss that. >> so you disagree with this and think there's a big technology -- >> i think the way stuart just said it is exactly right. the technology problem is a culture problem. i mean the democrats had 54 data analysts and were hiring ph.d.s in advanced math because they were using the most advanced decision processes in the country and bringing in behavioral scientists and trying to figure out how you talk to 311 million people and do so in a way that you can survive 8% unemployment and get re-elected
and it worked. now, i think it's actually -- he's right in a sense it's a cultural problem. none of our consultants would have imagined hiring 54 people in the decision area or having 24 people did nothing full time except e-mails and blind tested the best e-mails to see which ones worked. i mean, this -- they are a super bowl team that we ought to respect deeply and we are currently a midlevel college team floundering around and i agree. it's not just -- you can't just go out and buy this. this is a fundamental rethinking of how you relate to the american people. and, frankly, most of them -- i'm embarrassed to say i felt election day we'd win. i couldn't imagine this economy and obama getting re-elected and that made me think if an airplane hits the mountain maybe you better buy new radar. >> quickly because i want to move on -- >> the republican party's technology problem is a little like its immigration problem. it's necessary but not sufficient for it to get up to speed on those things. it won't help it win. i think about the republican
party like the old joke how many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb. the light bulb has to change. the republican party has to decide it wants to change. >> the dustup over chuck hagel and, george, the republicans delayed this. i don't understand what's going on. a lot who voted against having the vote said, no, no, i'll let it happen in two weeks. are the republicans playing it dangerous game by blocking hagel and brennan, defense and cia when they know that both of them are ultimately going to be confirmed. >> because they do know that and because most sensible republicans believe that a president is owed vast deference in picking his cabinet because the cabinet leaves when he leaves and the cabinet exist to implement his policies neither is true of judicial appointment, for example, now, chuck hagel took that principle and made it really hard to subscribe to with this appalling performance in his hearing. nevertheless, if the president wants a terrible secretary of defense, he's got a right to him. and i think he'll get him. >> big endorsement.
>> why the republicans playing this game. >> there's a second 2kri part which george would subscribe to. the constitution divides power. this is one of the first occasions where you see the republicans in the senate say we want to remind the executive branch that you have to have some deference to us. lindsey graham's point is tell us the rest of the benghazi story. other folks would like to know more where hagel's money came from. i don't find it unseemly to say to a potential secretary of defense or treasury, what you've been doing while you were out of public office. >> let me point out also you had a north korea doing its nuclear test. we've got a drawdown on afghanistanle all of these very significant issues and chuck hagel is being asked about sneaking fees that he may have received three or four or five years ago. >> may or may not have received. one guy more than any other that blocked this did senator ted cruz. listen to this exchange he had with john mccain.
>> it is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from saudi arabia. came directly from north korea. >> senator hagel is an honorable man. he has served his country and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity. >> now, cruz went on to say i don't have any evidence that moneys come from north korea but this is a fellow member of the texas delegation. >> i met ted. he's always been nice to 3450e but that was quite frankly shameful to suggest that somebody that was a decorated veteran in vietnam, who was wounded and hurt for his country was not loyal to his country i think really is quite harsh and was not loyal to his country i think really is quite harsh and had no place there. and doesn't much care. there was no predicate for suggesting that that money came from north korea or any other very horrible country and as the
former solicitor general of texas, he ought to know better than that. if you look at this cruz story, the hagel story more broadly, if washington wanted to come up with a way to look worse, i can't imagine one. you know, first of all, i'm with george. the president is entitled to his nominee but his performance, i was going to go with ex-veriable and now the republicans just want to make themselves look for obstructionist with a country frustrated with that. come on. if you don't like him, vote against him. >> this is just such washington nonsense. look at what democrats did to clarence thomas and to judge bork. you look at the three months that john tower was hung out to dry by the senate this is -- >> not endorsing that behavior. >> no, i'm saying to in this brand-new standard no matter how stupid chuck hagel is, no matter how bad his performance, we all know he is an honorable man. how do we know that.
>> we are unfortunately out of table. great roundtable. thank you very much for joining us. joaquin castro, stuart stevens, george will, and newt gingrich, really appreciate your time. up next, in a presidential run in store for this brain surgeon? "the wall street journal" hopes so. our sunday spotlight is next, pl who st spotlight at the white house this week? we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know
now time for our sunday spotlight. this week shining brightly on dr. ben carson, one of the top pediatric neurosurgeons in the country who made quite a splash with his recent appearance at the national prayer breakfast where with president obama at his side he had some choice words on political correctness and even the flat tax. listen. >> we've reached a point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. what about our taxation system? when i pick up my bible, you know what i see, i see the fairest individual in the universe, god, and he's giving us a system. it's called time. now, we don't necessarily have to do a 10%. but this principle. >> we're seeing "wall street journal" had a lead editorial
saying ben carson for president. thank you for joining us. >> well, thank you for having me. >> typically prayer breakfast speeches don't get this kind of attention. you got more than 2 million views on youtube of this speech. what do you make of this reaction? >> well, i make of it the fact that before i gave that talk, i prayed and asked god to give me wisdom what to say. what would resonate, what would be important and, you know, i don't think it was a particularly political -- >> some people do. >> i know they do but to be able to express an opinion about something that is problematic, you know, i'm a physician. i like to diagnose things and, you know, i've diagnosed some pretty, pretty significant issues that i think a lot of people resonate with and, you know, i've just been kind of overwhelmed by the response, particularly a lot of older americans who say, they had given up on america and, you know, what we really need is to be able to tone down all the
rhetoric and be able to discuss things in a reasonable and rational way and come to conclusions rather than one side or the other side winning. if we can do that, i think there's real power in that. >> in your book, which came out more han a year ago, it was down quite a ways on amazon. now it's number three on the amazon best-seller list but i've got to tell you i have never heard of somebody talking about the flat tax at a prayer breakfast. that was a pretty interesting -- >> well, you know, i preferred to talk -- to refer to it as the proportional tax because, of course, it comes from the concept of tithing, you know, if you make a gazillion dollars, you pay a gazillion dollars. if you make very little, you pay very little but everybody contributes. >> what do you make of president obama as a leader? >> i think he's a very talented
politici politician. >> that sounds like same phrase. you obviously disagree with him -- >> there are a number of policies that i don't believe lead to the growth of our nation and don't lead to the elevation of our nation, and, you know, what i would like to do -- i don't want to sit here and say all his policies are bad, but what i would like to see more often in this nation is an open and intelligent conversation. not people just casting aspersions at each other. i mean it's unbelievable to me the way people act like third graders and if somebody doesn't agree with them, they're this and they're that and, you know, and 2 comes from both sides and it's so infantile and i don't know how we'll make progress. >> before you go, "the wall street journal" ben carson for president, you're retiring as a surgeon this summer.
what do you make of it? are you going to get into politics? >> it's not my intention to do that. but as i always say in every part of my life, i'll leave that up to god. >> that sounded far from ruling it out. thank you very much, dr. ben carson. appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> you can read an excerpt from his book "america the beautiful" at our website abcnews.com/thisweek and now good news to report for the third week in a row the pentagon released no names of service members killed in afghanistan. but there was a reminder of service and sacrifice of our soldiers there on monday president obama awarded the medal of honor to army veteran clint romesha whose son told a bit of the spotlight before the ceremony began. romesha fought back tears as he was presented with the award for leading a charge against taliban fighters who attacked a small outpost in 2009. eight americans died in that battle. we honor the service of romesha and all of those soldiers. and finally, your voice this week, the question comes from
yasin who asks "where can i rewatch your programs can." thank you for watching. evi episode issal variable at our website, abcnews.com/thisweek or check out our web only interviews like this morning newt gingrich will be sticking around to answer your questions much that's all for us today. thank you for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out with"world news with d muir" tonight. george will be back next week and we hope you will too.